Background
Reina H. obtained an emergency order of protection in July 2025 after alleging that Rotwaun C. had verbally abused and physically threatened their child, A.C. When Rotwaun failed to appear in September, the Peoria County circuit court entered a two-year plenary order of protection by default. The order protected Reina and A.C., denied Rotwaun parenting time, and required a mental-health evaluation and recommended treatment.
Rotwaun promptly moved to vacate the default order. At an April 2026 hearing, Reina testified and offered text messages indicating A.C. feared Rotwaun; he neither testified nor presented evidence. With the parties’ consent, the court later interviewed 12-year-old A.C. in chambers. A.C. said she did not want contact with her father at that time, described arguments that left her crying, and recounted threatening statements he had made. The court denied the motion to vacate but allowed Rotwaun to seek future parenting time after completing anger-management classes, a mental-health evaluation, and recommended treatment.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District affirmed. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion or deny substantial justice by refusing to vacate the default plenary order. Rotwaun did not provide a transcript of Reina’s testimony at the April hearing, so the appellate court presumed the missing record supported the trial court’s ruling. The available record also supported the court’s decision, while Rotwaun had declined to offer testimony or evidence at the hearing.
The court also rejected Rotwaun’s challenge to the in camera interview. Unlike cases where a court used an interview to develop disputed abuse allegations without a parent’s consent, this interview was aimed at A.C.’s wishes concerning parenting time and possible future conditions for contact. More importantly, Rotwaun consented to the procedure. Any claimed error concerning counsel’s presence or cross-examination was therefore waived and, if error occurred, invited. His remaining request for a new evidentiary hearing failed because he already had an opportunity to present evidence.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant’s failure to provide a complete record requires the reviewing court to presume the trial court had an adequate factual basis for its ruling.
- A parent who consents to an in camera interview generally cannot obtain reversal by later challenging that procedure as a due-process violation.
- A court may preserve a path to future parenting time by conditioning reconsideration on treatment, evaluations, or other protective measures.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of building a complete record when seeking to vacate a default order of protection. Promptly moving to vacate alone did not establish that substantial justice required relief, particularly where the respondent did not use the later hearing to present evidence.
It also illustrates the practical force of invited-error doctrine in family-protection proceedings: counsel should clearly state any limits or objections before consenting to an in camera child interview.